In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

‘Not I’Adam Mars-Jones

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.

Lisa Dwan​ has been performing Samuel Beckett’s immensely demanding Not I since 2005. What audiences saw at two short London runs this year, at the Royal Court in January and the Duchess Theatre in February (the production now tours), differed markedly from the published text, though this is not a body of work where experimentation is welcomed. A literary estate is more like a guard dog than a pussy cat, and the Samuel Beckett estate has acquired a particular reputation for vigilance in defence of its author’s work.

Not I, premiered in 1972, is a sort of companion piece to Krapp’s Last Tape (1958), its female inversion. Krapp ruminates bleakly in extreme slow motion, while Mouth in Not I spills out words uncontrollably. In Krapp the past is multiply filtered and processed, with reminiscence counterpointed by impersonal memory – recorded tape – while in Not I it bursts through the present, brought up short only at the moments when the speaker refuses to acknowledge this past as hers. The word ‘I’ doesn’t feature in the text but is warded off with a defiant ‘she!’ every time it comes near. It’s very possible to have fun in the role of Krapp, but no actress is ever likely to enjoy herself playing Mouth. Beckett had hoped that Billie Whitelaw would give the premiere at the Royal Court but scheduling difficulties meant that Jessica Tandy preceded her, at the Lincoln Center, New York.

Beckett had a clear idea of the effect he wanted to produce with the monologue, an orifice vomiting language (‘an organ of emission, without intellect’), but wasn’t much interested in the difficulties the performer was likely to encounter. Mouth is supposed to speak from eight feet above the stage, meaning that some sort of gantry is required to get her into place, in Tandy’s case a black box that she shared with a man whose job was to keep the light focused on her mouth, though this position meant she had the luxury of five oversized prompt cards with the words written on them until her memory was secure. Beckett wanted no gestures from the performer, so the back of her head was locked in place. There was originally a forehead strap but it interfered with Tandy’s articulation and she had it removed. Tandy was an immensely experienced actress – the first Blanche Dubois, apart from anything else – but it was a mistake on her part, deriving from immersion in a different theatrical tradition, to ask the startled playwright questions about the character’s motivation (‘What happened to her in that field? Was she raped?’). The production was staged in the round, which made moving the box on and off stage especially difficult, extending the periods before and after the play when the performer was required to mumble her own Beckettesque gibberish. One night the box snagged on some electric cables and the whole system went down. Performance cancelled! Tandy felt nothing but relief.

Tandy stood up to play the role, bracing herself within the box by holding onto two iron bars, but Billie Whitelaw adopted a sitting position for the British premiere, strapped against the high back of a chair, an iron bar placed across its arms for her to hold onto. Deirdre Bair’s biography of Beckett describes it as an armchair, but the play’s Wikipedia entry suggests a more specialised piece of furniture, an ‘artist’s rest’ designed to let a film actor wearing heavy armour take the weight off his feet between takes. Whitelaw didn’t have the benefit of Tandy’s reading light and soon began to feel unreal to herself. Her son was recovering from meningitis and was subject to night terrors, which cost her sleep too. At one rehearsal, blindfolded and hyperventilating, she collapsed and after that insisted on a little blue light of her own – ‘so that I know I’m here’.

If Jessica Tandy was part of a box and Billie Whitelaw part of a chair, then Lisa Dwan is part of a wooden wall when she performs Not I, her forehead pressed against a plank, her mouth visible through a cutout. Tandy clocked in at 22 minutes, which Beckett considered too slow, Whitelaw trimmed it to 14 and Dwan takes less than ten, an astonishing feat of memory and articulation.

With plays of such intimate bleakness no institutional performing tradition was likely to develop, nothing like the curatorship of Chekhov claimed by the Moscow Arts Theatre, of Brecht by the Berliner Ensemble, of Balanchine by New York City Ballet, curatorship that sooner or later converges on taxidermy. There’s only the text and its demands. Ah, the text – easy for Lisa Dwan’s recent audiences to consult, since it’s reproduced in the programme. Here’s part of the stage directions: ‘AUDITOR, downstage audience left, tall standing figure, sex undeterminable, enveloped from head to foot in loose black djellaba, with hood, fully faintly lit, standing on invisible podium about four feet high shown by attitude alone to be facing diagonally across stage intent on MOUTH, dead still throughout but for four brief movements where indicated.’ The repeated movement is considered important enough to need a Note at the beginning of the script: ‘this consists of simple sideways raising of arms from sides and their falling back, in a gesture of helpless compassion. It lessens with each recurrence till scarcely perceptible at third.’

The first Auditor, raising arms in helpless compassion for Tandy, was Henderson Forsythe, not quite a star but passably eminent, and wildly overqualified for such a part. You don’t need to have played George in the first run of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? on Broadway to know how to make a minimal gesture at the right moment. No Auditor is visible in the filmed version of Whitelaw’s interpretation of the role – only the use of split screen could remedy that – but she refers to its presence on stage (‘a shadowy figure in the corner’) in her introductory comments. The Auditor isn’t an optional extra. Or is it? If even one of the critics of the recent performances mentioned its absence, then I missed the review, though there was a lot of reference to Dwan having discussed the part with Whitelaw (after already having played it), and being shown the notes given her by Beckett. The text and the tradition are divergent forms of authority, the tablets of the law as against the apostolic succession, with private notes from the writer counting perhaps as apocrypha, not necessarily to be trusted. There’s no certainty that notes given by Beckett to Whitelaw would be relevant to Dwan’s performance. For instance the intention had been for Whitelaw to produce an Irish accent, until Beckett got used to hearing her deliver the words in the Bradford accent of her childhood while she learned the part. For Dwan the Irish cadences of the piece are closer to home. Ideally text and tradition illuminate each other: there’s nothing in the published Not I, for instance, to indicate that the monologue should be taken at breakneck speed. An innocent reader picking it up and seeing the groups of three dots between phrases might think this was a slow agonising dribble of words rather than a high pressure hose. It might even work that way on stage, given the Morton Feldman treatment, fours hours of pianissimo, a different sort of ordeal for the actress and a new challenge for the Beckett estate.

A request from Deborah Warner to stage an all-female Waiting for Godot (the intended casting was Fiona Shaw and Maggie Smith) was refused in the early 1990s, and her 1994 production of Footfalls with Shaw came up against the estate’s straitened sense of what was allowed to a director venturing onto hallowed ground. Some lines had been reassigned, Shaw’s restlessly pacing character had gone off-piste from the stage onto the balcony and her dress was red rather than grey. Warner reversed the offending transposition, but those smaller liberties were enough to prompt the withdrawal of permission for a European tour. Other productions have met similar resistance: in 2006 a dispute reached court in Rome, where a judge determined that it was legitimate to cast female twins in Godot, since the parts were merely being played by women, not as women. Yet there seems to be no objection to Not I being staged without the Auditor – with the cast list brutally chopped in two – at first blush a greater infraction of authorial intention. But then the first director to dispense with the Auditor was Samuel Beckett. Text and tradition are at odds, and what happens then?

In productions where he was involved directly, Beckett wasn’t able to find a suitable placement on stage for the Auditor, and didn’t insist on the figure being included (it was omitted, for instance, from the French premiere in 1975). Writing to two American directors in 1986 he set out his position: ‘He is very difficult to stage (light – position) and may well be of more harm than good. For me the play needs him but I can do without him. I have never seen him function effectively.’ Necessary but dispensable, the sort of paradox that can be richly productive in literature, but translates into the world of business, of rights and permissions, as confusion.

Beckett’s stage imagination isn’t in doubt, but it’s possible to have reservations about the humbler gift of stagecraft. Auditor and Mouth occupy different parts of the stage, one full-sized and motionless (except at crucial moments of disruption in the monologue, when the audience’s attention will naturally be fixed on Mouth), the other a few inches across and moving constantly. Both are supposed to be faintly illuminated, with no change of lighting during the piece. How to make a single theatrical experience of two such opposed elements? When Beckett asked the impossible of a performer he was generally able to get his way. When the impossibility was technical he had to admit defeat. With the Auditor out of the picture matters of staging are simplified – Dwan’s Mouth couldn’t be described as ‘faintly lit’. In 1975 Beckett went so far as to describe the Auditor as ‘an error of the creative imagination’ in a letter, but for the second Paris production, in 1978, he had another go, increasing the visibility of the Auditor by means of a lighting change, so that the figure’s gestures were somewhat dramatised. He even experimented with changing the gesture, so that the Auditor covers his ears rather than raising his arms (the use of the male pronoun seems authorised by Beckett’s 1986 letter). It may be that there would be a suggestion of kitsch clinging to the Auditor’s ‘helpless compassion’ even if the gestures could be properly staged, but Beckett only had doubts about the idea when it presented insoluble technical problems. His objection wasn’t in the first place aesthetic, and it’s obvious that Not I is a different piece of work with and without the watching, identifying figure. Beckett’s Auditor, a wordless distillation of the Chorus, is the last vestige of Greek tragedy, the oldest element of the oldest dramatic tradition we have.

The common-sense way of squaring text and tradition would be to state in the published version of Not I that there’s more than one permissible way of staging the piece. What would be so terrible about doing that? Well, for one thing the idea of Beckett as an infallible prophet of his own work’s future life would have to go, replaced by someone who could change his mind and even be defeated by technicalities. Not such a bad thing, and much less oppressive to those of his admirers who want his work to stay fresh. Theatre doesn’t stop being a collaborative art form just because its themes are isolation and enclosure. Even a play about suffocation needs to be allowed to breathe.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 36 No. 7 · 3 April 2014

Adam Mars-Jones complains about the vigilance of the Samuel Beckett estate, citing problems with previous productions of Footfalls and Waiting for Godot – ‘the estate’s straitened sense of what was allowed’ (LRB, 6 March). He suggests that, in relation to Not I, ‘even a play about suffocation needs to be allowed to breathe.’ However, he spends most of his piece expressing concern that both Beckett and the estate decided on the removal of the Auditor, a figure which featured in early performances, and which remains in the published text.

Beckett, as Mars-Jones notes, had a somewhat ambivalent relationship with the part of the Auditor. Mars-Jones suggests that this was mainly on technical grounds, but also quotes Beckett’s remark that perhaps it was an error of the imagination. ‘Woman’s face alone in constant light. Nothing but fixed lit face and speech,’ he wrote in the unpublished theatre fragment, Kilcool, some years before Not I. He asked Ruby Cohn after a rehearsal of Happy Days: ‘Can you stage a mouth? Just a moving mouth with the rest of the stage in darkness?’ The subsequent difficulties of staging Not I with the inclusion of the Auditor seem to stem from the attempt to include two disparate images in a single holistic frame.

It was almost exactly two years after Billie Whitelaw’s 1973 performance at the Royal Court that the single image of the Mouth was filmed. When Beckett saw this version of Whitelaw’s performance in 1975 he apparently said that he found it ‘miraculous’. He dispensed with the Auditor in the Paris version of March 1975, and although he tried to reintroduce the figure in 1978, he questioned its viability. Perhaps, after seeing the film of Billie Whitelaw’s performance, he realised that the Auditor was to some extent an unnecessary embellishment, something of a distraction, as the audience, in complete darkness, replaces the Auditor as witness to Mouth’s distress.

Among other significant productions, Juliet Stevenson staged Not I in 1997 in Stratford, again without the Auditor. In the Channel 4 production directed by Neil Jordan, Julianne Moore, following the sound of birdsong, walks on set, sits down in a chair, and begins the piece, her mouth in close-up filmed from alternating angles. Edward Beckett was associate producer, so presumably the estate approved these alterations. (Channel 4 took liberties with many of the plays they filmed.) Moore’s performance comes in at about 13 minutes, much the same as Whitelaw’s. That Lisa Dwan comes in under ten minutes and manages to make the text intelligible is extraordinary. However, if Mars-Jones wanted to be even more pedantic about the relationship between performance and text, he might have added that Dwan, rather than ‘voice unintelligible’ and ‘with rise of curtain ad-libbing from text’, catches her throat as if choking on the words at both the beginning and end of the play. Dwan’s marvellous performance illustrates the margins for interpretation that exist in the work. The problems only seem to emerge when directors and actors think they have more creative imagination than Beckett himself.

Paul Rosenbloom
London E17

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.